Thursday, May 13, 2010

"Movement mounting against Reisman receiving honorary degree" - without mentioning she funds a charity dedicated to helping those who kill Palestinians. Bookninja, which purports to be a bit edgy, applauds Atwood (there are people in the Canadian book world you don't mess with).

"From 1982: how the New York Times justified the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon"

The most interesting part of the Zionist attack against Goldstone is that we know it was directed out of Avigdor Lieberman's office, and the usual hasbaraites said 'aye-aye, captain' and immediately wrote their hit pieces.

The bottom line is that Israel has a severe legitimacy crisis which is being fought off by the Zionists through various propaganda efforts, including buying off some money-hungry shabbos goyim into providing the illusion that Israel is a legitimate country. It is the same old story, and Atwood's Coulter-esque interest in 'free speech' - at least for people who aren't Palestinians - is pathetic.

Speaking of buying off the shabbos goyim: "Yediot: After bowing to US pressure on OECD vote, Turkey wants gestures from Israel"

"Just How Leaky Are Assertions From the Anti-Global Warming Crowd?" (my emphasis in red):

"Guernica: Do you think climate scientists might benefit from taking a page from the Republican playbook of how to better convey their message? I watched a debate between you and Marc Morano, the Republican communications guy, and he was generally much more aggressive. He kept interrupting, probably tripled your word output, and kept repeating key phrases. These kinds of tactics seem to work on a public with a short attention span.

Joseph Romm: That technique is called the Gish Gallup. It was invented by a Creationist. You talk fast, interrupt and throw out a non-stop stream of one-line lies or half-truths. There’s not much one can do about that technique, because in a debate you can’t constantly say, “That’s false, that’s false, that’s false.” Every one of those sentences takes a paragraph to rebut. So again you’re left in this realm of what you don’t rebut goes unrebutted. When you do rebut you use up all of your time. So I don’t think there’s anything productive to be gained by those debates. Juan Cole [President of the Global Americana Institute] wrote a piece urging climate scientists not to debate because you’re automatically giving equal weight to disinformation."

"Movement mounting against Reisman receiving honorary degree" - without mentioning she funds a charity dedicated to helping those who kill Palestinians. Bookninja, which purports to be a bit edgy, applauds Atwood (there are people in the Canadian book world you don't mess with).

"From 1982: how the New York Times justified the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon"

The most interesting part of the Zionist attack against Goldstone is that we know it was directed out of Avigdor Lieberman's office, and the usual hasbaraites said 'aye-aye, captain' and immediately wrote their hit pieces.

The bottom line is that Israel has a severe legitimacy crisis which is being fought off by the Zionists through various propaganda efforts, including buying off some money-hungry shabbos goyim into providing the illusion that Israel is a legitimate country. It is the same old story, and Atwood's Coulter-esque interest in 'free speech' - at least for people who aren't Palestinians - is pathetic.

Speaking of buying off the shabbos goyim: "Yediot: After bowing to US pressure on OECD vote, Turkey wants gestures from Israel"

"Just How Leaky Are Assertions From the Anti-Global Warming Crowd?" (my emphasis in red):

"Guernica: Do you think climate scientists might benefit from taking a page from the Republican playbook of how to better convey their message? I watched a debate between you and Marc Morano, the Republican communications guy, and he was generally much more aggressive. He kept interrupting, probably tripled your word output, and kept repeating key phrases. These kinds of tactics seem to work on a public with a short attention span.

Joseph Romm: That technique is called the Gish Gallup. It was invented by a Creationist. You talk fast, interrupt and throw out a non-stop stream of one-line lies or half-truths. There’s not much one can do about that technique, because in a debate you can’t constantly say, “That’s false, that’s false, that’s false.” Every one of those sentences takes a paragraph to rebut. So again you’re left in this realm of what you don’t rebut goes unrebutted. When you do rebut you use up all of your time. So I don’t think there’s anything productive to be gained by those debates. Juan Cole [President of the Global Americana Institute] wrote a piece urging climate scientists not to debate because you’re automatically giving equal weight to disinformation."